Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 27, 2012 6:00pm-6:30pm PST

6:00 pm
>> president chiu: good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, november 20, 2012. madam clerk, call the roll clmpletsd supervisor avalos, present. supervisor campos, present. president chiu, present. supervisor chu, present. supervisor cohen, present. supervisor elsbernd, present. supervisor farrell, present. supervisor kim, present.
6:01 pm
supervisor mar, present. supervisor olague, present. supervisor wiener, present. mr. president, all members are present. >> president chiu: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> president chiu: colleagues, we have board meeting minutes from october 9, 2012. approve, motion by supervisor mar, seconded by supervisor campos. those are approved. are there any communications? >> clerk calvillo: there are no communications. >> president chiu: could you read 2 pm special order. >> clerk calvillo: the policy discussion between mayor edwin lee and mrs of the board of
6:02 pm
supervisors. this week representing two even districts, districts 6 and 10. the mayor may initially address the board for up to five minutes. president will recognize the supervisor who will present their own questions sphp follow upquestions are in order as long as they do not exceed five minutes per supervisor. >> president chiu: welcome you back and i'm heartened at all the press attention on question time. mr. mayor. >> mayor lee: thank you, president chiu. thank you for asking me here to answer these two very important questions today. before i begin, i'd hike to thank everyone here, board of supervisors of course, the audience, and theas leadership here at the board, after a very important election. and the results that have moved our city forward in the right direction, from the payroll tax reform to housing, to taking care of our parks. i appreciate your advocacy and your commitment to san francisco. because of our collective efforts, san francisco voters were able to make a very
6:03 pm
thoughtful choices at the ballot box this past couple of weeks, that have helped fund infrastructure, move to job creating tax policy, and invest in critical housing needs in our city. collectively helping san francisco families and businesses. with that i'd like to take your two questions, supervisors. thank you. >> president chiu: thank you. our first question will be provided by our district 6 colleague, supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you and congratulations on your leadership on the propositions we passed a through e. in our district we've gotten many e-mails and questions about this but something that hasa uát up with our resident what are current procedures for recouping cost for street closures. specifically, what costs are being reimbursed to the city, beyond permitting fees and what costs incurred by departments other than the mta and sf police
6:04 pm
department is being recouped. in addition to required traffic control plan how is the city ensuring that major corporations allow pedestrian cyclist access in case of street closures. does the city evaluate increased traffic congestion in downtown areas when permitting street recoup that cost? >> mayor lee: thank you for your questions, supervisor kim. we don't take lightly the decision to close public facilities like streets and parks. but the events you mention, like oracles open world and sales forces dream force conference are full cost recovery events. this includes costs incurred by departments, public works, and entertainment commission. this is not just actual staff time spent on the streets and permits, but also administrative and facilities cost as well as
6:05 pm
extensive planning costs. for example, the mta recoups costs associated with traffic engineering, road striping, removal and reinstallations of services. totaled over $53,000 for open world, and over $38,000 for dream force. with regards to pedestrian and cyclist access, we require advanced detour signage to be posted. in the specific case of howard street, we required that the south sidewalk be opened at all times for pedestrians and cyclists. any street closure that happens in the city goes through a public hearing at the interdepartmental staff committee on traffic and transportation, or what we bureaucrats call is cot, which requires extensive detour signage, personnel during any
6:06 pm
closure. all of these costs are paid for by event sponsors. but above and beyond staff cost and street closures, these major events are very positive -- have that deserve equal attention. these events create and support thowntdz of jobs in this city, where tourism is our number one industry. let's examine these two events specifically. during the dream force conference this year, san francisco had a 94% occupancy rate in our hotels. during oracle open world, we ran a 92% occupancy rate. for both of those weeks, san francisco had the highest occupancy rate in the whole country. let me repeat, in the whole occupied rooms than anywhere else. high occupancy in our hotels means increased sales tax
6:07 pm
dollars being generated focusing again on the subject of your question of the open world oracle open world, it is estimated that they had an economic impact of $120 million for the week that they were here. during that week, over 97,000 hotel room nights were occupied. on average, this means over $24 million in hotel revenue and $3.4 million in tax revenue, all our general fund. i want to assure you all that we are doing everything we can to limit traffic impacts caused by these types of events, and we execute these events. this isn't just about making sure we're reimbursed. it will bring economic impact to businesses and our own general fund as well as a level of
6:08 pm
activity and vibrancy that makes san francisco unique. i believe that with careful planning and enforcement in place we should encourage these types of events in thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you. question will be provided by our district 10 colleague, supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, his good afternoon,e jpvz mr. mayor. mr. mayor, with the november election behind us our federal delegation is contending with potentially significant budget sequestration. have you examined what some of the potential impacts of these cuts may be to the city programs and services, particularly those that serve the poor and those in federally subsidized housing? >> mayor lee: thank you, supervisor, for raising this important issue. while we recently avoided state trigger cuts with the passage of proposition 30 we're not out of the woods yet. we all need to focus very
6:09 pm
closely on the fiscal cliff and sequestration cuts that it includes. the impacts on san francisco could be devastating. until we have more clarity, what congress as a whole might or might not do we will need to remain vigilant about protecting our reserves and the city's financial position. that said i'm encouraged by the reelection of president obama and certainly for the leadership that leader pelosi has given and will continue to give. we will need their leadership as the president must quickly face the challenge of his second term, avoiding this fiscal cliff. in august of 2011 congress passed the budget control act which threatened automatic spending cuts if congress failed to come up with a planned deficit reduction by 2013. these cuts are what we refer to as sequestration.
6:10 pm
this would mean an across the board cut of between 7% and 10% of all defense and non-defense federal spending irrespective of policy or its impact on everyday people. these cuts would be absolutely devastating to our national and local economies. our -- show that sequestration will reduce federal funding direct to san francisco by at least 26.5 million dollars a year, every single year. we would see over $5 million of cut to education, and almost $3 million of cuts from public housing. san francisco's allocation of medicare would be cut by $2 million. funding for the wic workforce program would lose almost $5 million. there would be a $1 million cut to housing services for people with hiv and aids and more than
6:11 pm
$1 million cut to the community development block grant program. ladies and gentlemen, this is our safety net. and our safety net's already strained by years of state cuts and it cannot sustain these additional reductions in federal funding. in addition to the cuts i have just detailed, there are also competitive grants and state pass-throughs that will also see cuts, and totals for which we really cannot estimate at this time. although this is serious business, and we need to get engaged -- although this is serious, we need to get engaged as a city to advocate against request ration -- sequestration taking place. my office is closely engaged with the governor, his white house, members of our federal delegation and other mayors from across the country to make sure they are aware of impacts sequestration would have on san francisco. i welcome all of your -- supervisors in making the case to our elected officials in
6:12 pm
washington, d.c. about the serious impacts this will have on our residents. thank you, supervisors, and i wish you all a wonderful season of giving, of sharing, and of caring for our vulnerable and most needy in our city. thank you very much. >> president chiu: thank you, mr. mayor. colleagues, why don't we go to our next items. madam clerk, could you read the consent agenda. >> clerk calvillo: items 2 through 11 comprise the consent agenda, they're considered routine. if a member requests discussion of a matter it can be considered separately. >> president chiu: would roll call vote on 2 through 11. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye.
6:13 pm
supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president chiu: those ordinances are passed, resolutions adopted and motions approved. madam clerk, could you call items 12 through 14. >> clerk calvillo: item 12 is a motion affirming certification by the planning commission of the final environmental impact report for the california pacific medical center's long range development plan. item 13 a motion reversing the certification. item 14 is a motion directing preparation of findings reversing the certification. >> president chiu: colleagues you may have heard discussions between the city and cpmc have recommenced recently. at this time this is nothing yet to report so i'd like to entertain a motion to continue these items to december 11. >> so moved. >> president chiu: motion by supervisor campos, seconded by supervisor farrell. without objection that shall be the case. madam clerk, why don't we call
6:14 pm
items 15 and 39. >> clerk calvillo: item 15 an ordinance reducing footage requirements for efficiency building units pursuant to california health and safety code. item 39 is an ordinance amending the planning code regarding efficiency dwelling units with the numerical cap and open common space requirements. this item was considered by the land use and economic development committee on november 19 and was forwarded to the board as a committee report was recommended as amended with a new title. wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. today we have two companion pieces of legislation that will help us to address our housing crisis in san francisco. this legislation is by no means the complete solution but it is one piece of the puzzle. we have a housing affordability
6:15 pm
crisis in san francisco. we're at a point where one bedroom apartments are going for 2500 or 3,000 a month. even large studios are going for 2,000 or more a month. we've had housing affordability problem in san francisco for many years and it has gotten even worse than it normally is. we need flexibility in our housing policy to make sure that we are producing enough housing and various types of housing to meet our diverse housing needs in san francisco. i am a big supporter of public investment in affordable housing and with a strong supporter of prop c the affordable housing trust fund and we need to keep moving in that direction. but we will never have enough public dollars to be able to fund our way publicly out of our housing affordability crisis. this legislation will allow for the creation of smaller efficiency units, also known as
6:16 pm
microunits,"tjpq and will gives some additional flexibility. these units will rent for less than one bedrooms and our allow some people, who can't afford current rents to be able to afford something. for some people this could be the difference of being able to stay in a neighborhood and leaving. to be clear, we already have many microunits in san francisco, and they are called roommate situations. we have a lot of three and four bedroom apartments in san francisco, where three, four, five, six or more people are living together, in cramped sharing a small bedroom, and then a whole group of people sharing a bathroom and a kitchen and no living room because it's been converted into a bedroom. this will allow people if they choose to live alone and pay
6:17 pm
less rent than they would otherwise have to to get a one bedroom. now this legislation has -- had quite a winding road to get where we are today, and i've been very grateful for the input from many, many people abouteq%y this legislation. we engaged in extensive negotiations to come up with a piece of legislation that a lot of different people can get behind. i want to particularly thank president chiu for his very productive participation and his staff, as well as gayle gillman from the community housing partnership and sarah short from the housing rights committee. i think we had very productive negotiations and we've come up with a good result. so that result is -- and this is item 39, the planning code amendment, is that for market rate microunits, there will be a cap of 375 units. once we reach 320 units entitled the planning department will be
6:18 pm
required to go through an analysis of what we produced, where they're located, the type of housing it is. student housing, group housing, and affordable housing will not be subject to this cap. once we get near the cap, and once the planning department does its analysis we will then be in a position to decide whether or not to extend this legislation. colleagues, i think that this is a very positive step afford. i am very appreciative of everyone who participated to getting us here and i ask for your support. i do have some technical amendments to the reporting and reauthorization process in terms of clarifying what will go into that analysis, and making clear that the planning department, in conducting its analysis, will collaborate with the mayor's office of housing to make sure we have very complete data, and also just clarifying how the analysis will take place.
6:19 pm
we've distributed those amendments. they're non-substantive and i would ask we adopt those amendments to item 39. i also want to acknowledge sophie haywood is here from it the planning department and i want to thank her for her help and participation as well. thank you. >> president chiu: is there a second? seconded by supervisor farrell. can we take that without objection. without objection that will be the case. i want to thank sarah and gayle and other tenant advocates for work that has been done over the last couple of months to get us where we are today. supervisor campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you. i want to thank supervisor wiener and the folks that have worked on this item. i have to say that this, for me, has not been a clear-cut issue. there has been a lot of different thoughts that i've had about this piecen+jau;ñ of legi. i agree with supervisor wiener, that we do need to provide
6:20 pm
different alternatives and different types of housing as we're facing the -- continue to face the issue of san francisco no longer being an affordable place for so many san franciscans. i had the opportunity to visit with my staff. one of the microunits as they're called, and the units that i visited were actually a little bit larger than what's being proposed here, over 200 square feet. and one of the things that struck me is the fact that even though they do maximum the use of the space, that you're still talking about very small units units that we saw, you were talking about these units potentially being rented at $1500 a month, which is not a lot of space for
6:21 pm
$1500. so that kind of goes to the crux of my concern, which is, as we're building these microunits, are we, in a way, creating or exacerbating the problem by setting pretty high bar in terms of how expensive housing is. if a 230 square feet unit is going to rent for $1500, what does that do to the rest of the places in san francisco. that is the concern. because of that concern, if we had the first item, item 15, being presented to us on its own, i would be voting against the legislation. but i do think that the existence of item 39, and specifically the establishment of a cap is something that at least gives me some comfort. not this -- if you will, that i fear would
6:22 pm
materialize. i think having a cap would allow us to have the ability to assess whether or not the negative impact will actually happen. and so it is with the caveat that it's only until we see what actually happens, once these units are built, that i am willing to give this kind of a pilot a try at this point. i do think that if we're going to try something like this, that done by planning is really critical, and i hope that in doing that analysis, once 325 units have been3 h approved, that not onls planning living up to the letter, but also the spirit of what's embedded in this ordinance in terms of giving us as much information to have a pretty accurate assessment of what if any negative impact there is. i also hope that we also talk
6:23 pm
about and consider how -- where you build these units can also have an impact. depending on the neighborhood that you're talking about, this may be a good fit, it may not. and so i look forward to that information. so with that caveat i will be supporting this piece of legislation, these two pieces of legislation. but, again, in terms of whether or not the negative impactyf%(õl take place, i think that the jury's still out, and i think that we just have to wait and see. but i do want to thank supervisor wiener and all the folks who have worked on this for considering these concerns, and taking them into consideration. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. record to express some of my concerns about this legislation, and its impact on particularly in the south of market, a
6:24 pm
district that i represent, where i think much of the efficiency dwelling units can be built. i think one of the priorities that we have seen, and we've heard over and over again is of course the need for the city to build more affordable multi-unit housing for families and that this is not necessarily an area that our city needs to prioritize. however, i just want to echo my colleagues in saying that i really actually appreciate supervisor wiener's office, working with many of our housing advocates around this issue, to cross the compromise that is coming before us to allow this building -- to go through but to cap the production of these microunits to 375 units. for that reason i will be voting to support this today. but i still wanted to reiterate the concerns that i had shared several months ago on terms of what this policy may mean. first of all i really do hope that if these units do go forward that they're tried out
6:25 pm
in other naikdz neighborhoods. soma is already experiencing incredible density and is really struggling to meet that density with infrastructure, whether it is transit and open space. and i think that it'sá ás÷ realy important that as we experiment or pilot this program, that we really study what the impact to those neighborhoods are, and are we adequately meeting those needs based on this policy. these smaller units would increase population -- could increase population in my district by as much as 32%. and i think that as we do this, it's important that we carefully study this. so i prosecute esh that we are going -- appreciate that we are going to move forward with this in this direction. >> president chiu: supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: thank you. this one is kind of troubling to me. i don't think i read the same memo in everyone else. i thought i lived in a efficiency unit. a family of four, 950 square
6:26 pm
feet and every inch of space is used. and we're just totally crammed in. i live in a district that is 6500 more people more dense than it was 10 years ago, and we have a number of houses that has efficiency units for the number of people who are crammed into them. and a great demand i see for housing is not something that i believe is really the kind of units that we're waiving the way here today. i do see that there are benefits for that and in certain parts of san francisco but i think over all this does not make a lot of sense to the san francisco that i know. i also know there are a lot of people who live in this city who are desperately trying to remain san franciscans representatives of this city, and are finding it difficult to be here because of the rising cost o of rent. i don't believe this is any kind of units being created that will
6:27 pm
actually be able to help that group of people. so i just cannot stomach, you know, supporting this idea, though there might be some folks who see benefit. i just will be voting against it. >> president chiu: colleagues, any further discussion? let's take a roll call vote on these two items. madam clerk. >> clerk calvillo: on item 15 and 39 as amended, supervisor avalos, no. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. there are 10 ayes and one no. >> president chiu: these ordinances are passed on the first reading. supervisor wiener, item 16.
6:28 pm
>> clerk calvillo: item 16 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to monitor san francisco's housing preservation and production policies and goals and making the requisite findings. >> president chiu: supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: if i could be called afterwards. i'm not prepared at this moment. >> president chiu: if we could pass over item 16 aened go to item 17. >> clerk calvillo: item 17, an ordinance amending the planning code to -- development fee rates, revise exemptions and credits and clarify implementation and collection. >> supervisor chiu: supervisor wiener 12k3w4r58 thank you. we are continuing to have dialogue around transit impact development fee update. so we've continued it three times before. i anticipate that this will be the final continuance so i move to continue this item two weeks to december 4. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener has made a motion to
6:29 pm
continue this item to the 4th of december. seconded by supervisor cohen. without objection this item will be continued to december 4. item 18. >> the clerk: ordinance appropriating approximately 2.7 million of state reserves for san francisco unified school district for fiscal year 2012-2013. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. first i want to take time to appreciate the incredibly high level engagement of discussion, dialogue, there has been around the supplemental which i introduced last month for san francisco unified school district. this is a supplemental that is asking us to give 2.7 million out of our state reserve fund to assist the school district. both in the recent cuts that have been made for the 21st century for their after school funding and also to assist in helping our first two classes of graduates that have to graduate a


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on